The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1887-05-14

States by convenient acts of the Leg
isla:Ires of Virginia and Maryland,
that said proceedings are void, and
said acts a nullity, unless the jury
find that the line so run has been
adopted and ratified by the States OF
Maryland and Virginia, according to
the Act of 1852, chapter 275, or West
Virginia and their verdict must be
for the defendant.
All of said prayers were rejected
by the Court, and upon request, leave
was granted to trayerser to modify
his first proyer. which being done
the Court still refused to grant the
same.
The instructions asked for on the
part of the State, was as follows:
1. The State of Maryland, by its
attorney, prays the Court to instruct
the jury that in the issue joined upon
the plea in abatement submitted by
the traverser in this case, the burden
of proof is upon the traverser, and it
is incumbent upon him to show
affirmatively that the place or point
at which the offence charged in the
indictment is charged to have been
committed, is not in Garrett county,
Maryland, but in Preston county,
West Virginia, and unless he shall
do so by such affirmative proofs, the
jury must find for the State of Mary
land, Notwithstanding the jury shall
further find that there have been and
! oil hn 70
the claims of the State of Maryland
to that territory between individuals
in the neighborhood, IN respect to the
lands lying a0itItjn said disputed terri
tory.
2. The State of Maryland, by its
attorney, further prays the Court to
instruct the jury that if it shall find
from the evidence that a line was run
due North from Fairfax stone to the
Southern line of the State of Penn
sylvania, as a boundary line between
the States of Maryland and Virginia
in the year 1859, by or under the
direction of commissioners appointed
by the authority of the States Of
Maryland and Virginia for that pur-
pose, and shall further find that the
State of Maryland, by its Act of
Assembly. chapter 3S5, passed in the
year 1860. ratified and adopted the
same, then such line is the true di-
visional line between the States of
Maryland and the State of West
Virginia.
And if the jury shall further find
that the point or place at which the
| of ho in, hA
was committed is east of the said
divisional line, then the jury must
find for the State upon the issue
joined.
After slightly modifying it by
striking out the words, "but in Pres
ton county. West Virginia." and
adding the words at the close in
italics, the Court granted the States
first prayer, and granted the follow
ing in lieu of and as a substitute for
the States second prayer:
And further instructs the jury that
if they shall find from the evidence
that the point or place at which the
offence charged in the indictment was
committed, is east of the line, as sur
yeyed in 1859 by the commissioners
appointed by the States of Maryland
and Virginia, in conformity with the
laws passed by the said States for that
purpose, then the jury must find for
the State upon the issue Joined.
To the ruling of the Court rejecting
the defendants and granting the
States prayers, the defendant ex-
cepted, and the case was then sub
mitted without argument to the jury,
and in short time verdict was rem
dered for the State.
The question of jurisdiction having
been determined, the witnesses were
all discharged until Wednesday
morning.